The Management Commission met at 5:15 p.m. in the House of Assembly Chamber.

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): Good afternoon.

This is a continuation of the House of Assembly Management Commission meeting
that started yesterday, Tuesday, December 4. Because of the hour and the House
sitting last night, you recall we had to wrap up at 7:00 p.m. There was one
outstanding item from that agenda. This is a continuation of the December 4
meeting of the House of Assembly Management Commission.

Again, because we are in a new different broadcast day, formally we will go
through the process of introducing the members of the Commission and people in
attendance today.

I will start with my left.

Mr. Verge.

MR. VERGE: Wade Verge, observer on the committee.

MS MICHAEL: Lorraine Michael, Signal Hill  Quidi Vidi.

MR. BALL: Dwight Ball, Humber Valley.

MR. GRANTER: Vaughn Granter, Humber West.

MR. KING: Darin King, Government House Leader.

MS SHEA: Joan Shea, St. George's  Stephenville East.

MS JONES: Yvonne Jones, Cartwright  L'Anse au Clair.

CLERK: Sandra Barnes, Clerk.

MS KEEFE: Marie Keefe, Clerk's Office.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you very much.

Just to recap where we left off yesterday: in yesterday's agenda under Tab 3
there was a financial report for the period of April 1, 2012 to September 30,
2012. Contained within those reports is a financial summation of the caucus
funds for that reporting period here, which is up to the end of September 2012.
There was an issue that within that report identified the current status of the
financial performance of each of the caucuses up that particular point.

There is an item in here dealing with the Third Party caucus budget and their
current operational costs. The issue at hand grew out of a meeting of the
Commission that was held on September 18 when at that time the Commission talked
about a request from the Third Party to deal with a Budget shortfall of about
$12,000 in their salaries. At the time there was a motion that the request as
proposed was rejected by the Commission.

Yesterday when we were talking, there were a couple of points that were
raised. Number one was that the minutes of the meeting in the middle of
September, September 18, did not reflect any definitive decision of the
Commission that would give authority to officials and the Third Party to proceed
in any fashion to deal with the deficit. That was one of the points that were
raised yesterday. There was a recognition that the issue needed to be disposed
of pretty quickly because we are now approaching the final quarter of the fiscal
year. This was an expense category where there can be no deficits and everybody
has to operate in the balanced budget.

With that kind of very brief summation of currently where we are, maybe what
we could do is use as a point of reference to build our discussion the briefing
note that was used in the meeting of September 18, where at that time there were
three options that were presented that the Commission could have considered at
the time. I will read them into the record.

The first option was that the Third Party caucus take the necessary staffing
actions to live within their existing budget; the second option was the transfer
of funds from other Third Party caucus funds into the salary allocation; or the
third option at the time was the transfer of funds from elsewhere in the
Legislature, subject to availability.

The third option was put in the form of a motion by Ms Michael and discussed
by the Commission and rejected. That is what the minute reflects. The meeting of
September 18 did not go on and then deal with the other two options in a formal
way by having them dealt with through a motion.

Earlier today, I had distributed to each of you two things; one, was a copy
of Hansard from that meeting on September 18 which recorded the discussion that
took place at that meeting; and the second thing I had distributed to you would
be a document that talks about a budget transfer.

To help facilitate a discussion on option 2 of that earlier Briefing Note,
this budget transfer note reflects the dollar amounts that could be transferred
from one account to the other, which identifies four budgetary categories where
the Third Party caucus have said we would like the Corporate Services to make
the transfers in the documented amounts here. Transfer those dollar amounts from
those budget accounts over to the Third Party caucus salaries.

I do not know if Ms Michael would want to make a motion to help generate a
discussion with respect to the option 2 that I just identified a moment ago from
the Briefing Note of September 18.

Ms Michael.

MS MICHAEL: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would like to move and to say first of
all doing so within the context of our transfer of funds policy for the
Management Commission, which under section 4.2.2 Salaries, that says the "House
of Assembly Management Commission approval is required to transfer funds from
any Main Object (other than Salaries) into the Salaries Main Object." That is
the direction with regard to transfer of funds policy.

In that context, we do have the authority to approve transfers. I then move a
transfer of funds from other Third Party caucus funds into the salary
allocation.

MR. SPEAKER: Is there a seconder for that motion?

MR. BALL: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will second the motion for the discussion
purposes.

MR. SPEAKER: It has been seconded by Mr. Ball.

The floor is now open for a discussion. Is there any member who would wish to
make a comment about the motion that is on the floor for a discussion by the
Commission?

Ms Michael.

MS MICHAEL: Just to say a couple of things, Mr. Speaker. First of all, it
is within our power to do this approval. The amount of money, number one, is
shown in the budget adjustment that had already been worked out by our office
administrator. We can cover the $12,100. We have found the money. Needless to
say, it leaves us with very little, but we have found it. It is there in our
budget, and we have put forward this budget adjustment to the Corporate
Services.

Not to make excuses or anything, but just to remind us all, this did occur
because of an error in reporting from Corporate Services. It was unfortunate.
The minute we found out about it, we ended the contract with the person whom we
had contracted, believing that we had the money. It is not costing anybody  the
$12,000 is there in our budget. We have put forward the budget allotment, and we
are permitted to do this. It has been something we have done at different times,
as a Commission, with other budget transfers that have been made; some of them
actually that we even approved in e-mail, which had to do with monies going from
other line items into salaries.

So, I really do believe that it is within the spirit of  well, it is not
only within the spirit, it is allowed under our policy, and we have done it in
other cases.

As I said, we can do it; the money is there. It means we have a really tight
belt until March 31, but we will live with that tight belt. I do hope that we
have support for this motion.

MR. SPEAKER: Any further comments by any members of the Commission?

I want to make just one comment, if I could, with respect to some clarity,
the comment that was just made by Ms Michael. There have been transfers made
from other budgetary items in the salaries in offices other than caucuses and
the distinction is that the caucus allocations are done as a result of a Metrics
report that has been endorsed by the Commission. These other offices where these
transfers have occurred are not covered by that report and that particular
provision. So there is a distinction between the three caucus funds and other
offices that fall under the House of Assembly, like Statutory Offices and those
others. There is that uniqueness about the caucus funds. That is just a point of
clarification.

I will ask one more time before I call the question, any further discussions
with respect to the motion?

Mr. Ball.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to ask a question on that so I can be clear, too, because, as you
know, we have a bit of a history with this. We have had some problems in the
past with salaries and I have had to make a decision to let some people go.

I guess what I am looking for here is if we indeed approve this transfer,
what are the ramifications of approving a transfer like this outside of the
Metrics report?

MR. SPEAKER: As I respond to your question that you are raising, I will
make the comment as an opinion versus an authority, if you are asking me in my
role as the Chair.

As a member of this Commission, as Chair of the Commission then I bring
people back to a discussion that we had during the last budgetary process around
the Metrics report. If my memory serves me, there is a motion made by the
Commission that we would be guided by the Metrics report in all of the budget
allocations for each of the caucuses, so we endorse as a Commission. We have
said whatever the Metrics report says the caucuses get, that is what you get. It
is a formula driven process written in that report. So we have endorsed the
report.

Doing something here that was acknowledging there was an error made and that
the Third Party Caucus finds itself in a spot where their salary budget is now
in a deficit, in an attempt to remedy the error that was made, the implication
would be that we would make a decision contrary to the Metrics report and
contrary to the motion by the Commission that we would, in fact, be guided by
the Metrics report.

I do not know if that answers your question or not.

MR. BALL: Thank you.

It does, because we have always operated under the impression  and this
could change, I have no problem here. I can understand the situation but I guess
what would happen  it would raise the question: What are we guided by now?
Would it be the Metrics report or is it something like this here, in this
particular case here?

That is what I am looking for clarification on because in the future we could
actually see situations where, I guess any caucus, if they had extra money
wherever a main object area would be, that they could actually move money into
salaries. I do not know if that is something we were trying to prevent or we
would allow in the future. That is kind of where I am with it, just to try and
get some clarification where this would end up.

MR. SPEAKER: I guess the motion that we have before us now would be 
what it in essence does, it asks the Commission to make an exception to a
decision that it has already made to be guided by the Metrics report. The
motion, in effect  I am not putting words in the mover's mouth either, but the
motion, in effect, is saying: Because of the circumstance, can we make an
exception to the earlier decision of the Commission to be guided by the Metrics
report? That is what the motion, in effect, is doing here today. Is that
correct?

Ms Michael.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That is what I am asking of the Commission. An error was made. The minute
that we found out the error was made we took the action that we took. We, in no
way, mean this to be a policy for changing the allotment for salaries to the
caucus office.

If the seconder agreed, I would add something in the motion that might help,
that this would be a one-time transfer of funds from other Third Party caucus
funds into the salary allocation. Then it may make it easier for people, but if
we want to make that clear, that it is a one-time transfer of funds from other
Third Party caucus funds into the salary allocation to deal with an
extraordinary circumstance, without naming the extraordinary circumstance.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair would acknowledge that if the seconder is prepared
to 

MR. BALL: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Okay. So the minutes will reflect the motion as just
articulated by Ms Michael for clarity purposes.

There being no further discussion, I will call for the question. All
attendants have heard the motion with the qualifier as we have just heard
articulated and I will ask now for a vote.

All those in favour of the motion as we heard it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is defeated.

In terms of disposing of the issue at hand, so we are clear this time and the
minutes reflect that clarity, the options as laid out in the briefing note I
referenced earlier that was used in the meeting of September 3 gave three
options. We have had two of them dealt with, and the motion has been rejected;
the Commission has rejected these two options.

The third one, which is the one outstanding, is that the Third Party caucus
take necessary staffing actions to live within the existing budget. I am not
certain if that is necessary to make a motion to that effect so the Commission
directs it, because it is implicit in your budget allocation: you have been
given a budget, here is what it is, and there is no provision for overrun.

My suggestion is that we do not need a motion to give direction to the Third
caucus to that effect, because it is implicit in the budget allocation; it would
be clear, though, that the Third Party caucus now would need to identify for
Corporate Services in the very near term the staffing actions to be taken to
bring the budget in line with the forecasted allocations by the end of March,
because it is $12,000, and three months is not a long time to do that. So, I
would ask that the Third Party caucus work with Corporate Services in the coming
days to identify the necessary staffing actions that will result in a balanced
budget by March 31.

This was the only item on the agenda for today, and this now concludes 
before we adjourn the meeting, I want to remind members of the discussion we had
yesterday about the next meeting of the Commission in early January to deal with
the report. Everybody has a copy of the report. I want to remind everybody to
have a review of it, and we will provide documentation for that meeting some
time early in the new year as well.

Before we conclude, though, I do want to publicly thank Judge Brazil for the
work she has done on behalf of all of us and the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador, the extensive research that has gone into her report, and for the
insight she has given us, as we reflect on the recommendations and bring forward
either our commentary and recommendations for our colleagues in the House of
Assembly. I want to do that publicly before we adjourn today.

So, with that said, this meeting now stands adjourned until the call of the
Chair in early September to deal with the 

AN HON. MEMBER: January.

MR. SPEAKER: January, I am sorry. I have September on the brain now - we
just dealt with a meeting in September  in early January of 2013.